Hello folks, Just an FYI that I've submitted a pull request  to replace Celery with oslo.messaging.
I've tagged it as a work in progress per this note: "Please review this CR, which replaces Celery with oslo.messaging components. I've verified that this works in my local environment, but I still need to add unit testing. I also need to verify that it works correctly with an HA Rabbit MQ cluster, as that is a hard requirement for Barbican." Special thanks to Mark McLoughlin and Sylvain Bauza for pointing me to very useful links here  and here  respectively.  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/60427/  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/39929  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57880 Thanks, John ________________________________________ From: Monty Taylor [mord...@inaugust.com] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 8:35 PM To: Mark McLoughlin; Douglas Mendizabal Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions); openstack...@lists.openstack.org; barbi...@lists.rackspace.com Subject: Re: [openstack-tc] [openstack-dev] Incubation Request for Barbican On 12/06/2013 01:53 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 23:37 +0000, Douglas Mendizabal wrote: >>> >>> I agree that this is concerning. And that what's concerning isn't so >>> much that the project did something different, but rather that choice >>> was apparently made because the project thought it was perfectly fine >>> for them to ignore what other OpenStack projects do and go off and do >>> its own thing. >>> >>> We can't make this growth in the number of OpenStack projects work if >>> each project goes off randomly and does its own thing without any >>> concern for the difficulties that creates. >>> >>> Mark. >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> You may have missed it, but barbican has added a blueprint to change our >> queue to use oslo.messaging  >> >> I just wanted to clarify that we didn’t choose Celery because we thought >> that “it was perfectly fine to ignore what other OpenStack projects do”. >> Incubation has been one of our goals since the project began. If you’ve >> taken the time to look at our code, you’ve seen that we have been using >> oslo.config this whole time. We chose Celery because it was >> >> a) Properly packaged like any other python library, so we could just >> pip-install it. >> b) Well documented >> c) Well tested in production environments >> >> At the time none of those were true for oslo.messaging. In fact, >> oslo.messgaging still cannot be pip-installed as of today. Obviously, had >> we know that using oslo.messaging is hard requirement in advance, we would >> have chosen it despite its poor distribution story. > > I do sympathise, but it's also true is that all other projects were > using the oslo-incubator RPC code at the time you chose Celery. > > I think all the verbiage in this thread about celery is just to > reinforce that we need to be very sure that new projects feel a > responsibility to fit closely in with the rest of OpenStack. It's not > about technical requirements so much as social responsibility. > > But look - I think you've reacted well to the concern and hopefully if > it feels like there was an overreaction that you can understand the > broader thing we're trying to get at here. I agree. I think you've done an excellent job in responding to it - and I appreciate that. We're trying to be clearer about expectations moving forward, which I hope this thread in some part helps with. Monty _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackemail@example.com http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev